Skip to main content
Glama

get_identity_core

Retrieve the identity model and core memory clusters to maintain long-term continuity for AI systems through persistent memory storage.

Instructions

Retrieve the current identity model and core memory clusters

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • mcp.js:585-587 (handler)
    The MCP tool handler that routes 'get_identity_core' tool requests to the MemoryManager.getIdentityCore() method and returns the result as JSON
    case "get_identity_core":
      const identity = await memoryManager.getIdentityCore();
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(identity, null, 2) }] };
  • mcp.js:183-189 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler that defines the get_identity_core tool with its name, description, and empty input schema
      name: "get_identity_core",
      description: "Retrieve the current identity model and core memory clusters",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {}
      }
    },
  • The actual implementation of getIdentityCore() that queries the database for the most recent identity model record
    async getIdentityCore() {
      try {
        const identity = await this.db
          .select()
          .from(schema.identityModel)
          .orderBy(desc(schema.identityModel.id))
          .limit(1);
    
        return identity[0] || null;
      } catch (error) {
        console.error('Error getting identity core:', error);
        throw error;
      }
    }
  • Alternative schema definition for get_identity_core tool (appears to be a standalone definition file, not imported in mcp.js)
      name: "get_identity_core",
      description: "Retrieve the current identity model and core memory clusters",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {}
      }
    },
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieve' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format entails (e.g., structured data vs. raw clusters). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, return format) and usage context, which are important for a retrieval tool in a complex memory system. It meets the basic threshold but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary param details, earning a high baseline score. It could be a 5 if it explicitly noted the lack of parameters, but it's sufficient as-is.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('retrieve') and the target resources ('current identity model and core memory clusters'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_memory_clusters' or 'get_worldview' that focus on different aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_memory_health' might overlap in scope), keeping it from a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_worldview' or 'get_memory_clusters', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for retrieval. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions, relying solely on the tool name for implied usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/randyandrade/agi-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server